- Posts: 1376
- Joined: 07 Jul 2004 13:55
- Location: Festung Europa
I'm not saying that the Red Army was as efficient - or the Battle of Kursk as devastating for the Germans - as Soviet historians depicted. Obviously a lot of the debunking that happened after 1989 was both warranted (as Soviet historiography misrepresented many facts and suppressed others) and impartial. And I'm not suggesting that Western historiography is monolithic. Obviously it isn't. But it seems there are many historians in both the West and Eastern Europe who are trying to depict some of the events of the Eastern Front from a biased, right-wing, even pro-German perspective. I don't think most of them are taken very seriously but some of them are popular. What I find strange is that they haven't milked the story of Operation Mars for all its worth.
- Posts: 2582
- Joined: 26 Jan 2010 09:33
- Location: Tampere, Finland, EU
Watch this video-series which is very contradictive in Russia (year 2009):
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 04 Aug 2007 10:03
- Location: Australia
Oleg Grigoryev wrote:According To Glantz there 7 mobile corps actually there were 5 – 1st and 3rd mechanized 5th and 6th tank and 2nd Cavalry Guards. Actual number of troops that took part in the offensive was 362000. All numbers are from Orlov critique of Glantz book. His numbers are from the archive of ministry of defense. I can give you shelf and file number if you would likeQvist wrote:If I may try to redraw your attention to one specific aspect - what exactly is wrong with Glantz's figures?
Consider total casualties of Red army in operation Mars are close to 220000. can we call that as a tactical failure?
- Posts: 4454
- Joined: 20 Jan 2004 19:23
http://www.amazon.com/STALINGRAD-KURSK- ... 824&sr=8-1
"This isn't Paris, you will not get through here with a Marching Parade!" Defenders of Stalingrad